As far as I know, Canada is the biggest supplier of foreign oil to the US surpassing even Saudi Arabia.
This may or may not be true, i dont know and i admit it. The thing is that the OIL SANDS work only if oil is expensive because it is BY FAR THE MOST expensive oil to take out of the ground, the refining process costs a fortune, so if oil is less than "70-80 a barrell" it costs more to drag it out then they can sell it for thus they shut it down. With Oil selling at 35 they arent going to pump it at an instant 50% loss. Hope that explains it. I have zero doubt USA gets a million barrels a day from Alberta but i know 100% it is not "OIL SAND OIL" at these prices.
Suncor's average operating costs per barrel were $38.50 in 2008 and $27.80 in 2007. Cost per barrel reached 41.30 in the 4th qtr 2008 mainly because there was a fire at the oil sands facility. The planned cost per barrel for 2009 is $33 - 38. http://www.suncor.com/doc.aspx?id=356 page 2 and 3.
So now add more than 13$ a barrel in 2009 and you still arent close, these numbers are bullshit and if you lived close to anyone who worked there you would know how absurd they are why dont you find someone who worked on the oil sands in 2008 and tell me if they are still working there today.
There is a difference between oil upstarts that have to build everything at a high cost, that might have to develop less attractive land and Suncor or Syncrude that have been around for so long they will have lower cost structures. I don't know anyone working for those personally, but I believe those numbers.
It's happened before-- http://www.bitsofnews.com/images/graphics/economy/weimar.jpg The Weimar Republic
Just to let everyone know that they should do their own due diligence before believing anything they read on here about Suncor's operating costs. I think the actual number for the next 24 months is somewhere around $40/bbl as they increase production. Still not a great number for '09 but $70 is just flat out wrong.